Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Constraining the unexplored period between reionization and the dark ages with observations of the global 21 cm signal"

See other formats


o 

(N 



(N 

o 
u 

o 



> 

in 

o 
^, 

vn 

o 
o 



% 



Constraining the unexplored period between reionization and the dark ages with 

observations of the global 21 cm signal 

Jonathan R. Pritcharqj and Abraham Loeb 

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, MS-51, 60 Garden St, Cambridge, MA 02138 

Observations of the frequency dependence of the global brightness temperature of the redshifted 
21 cm line of neutral hydrogen may be possible with single dipole experiments. In this paper, 
we develop a Fisher matrix formalism for calculating the sensitivity of such instruments to the 
21 cm signal from reionization and the dark ages. We show that rapid reionization histories with 
duration A« < 2 can be constrained, provided that local foregrounds can be well modelled by low 
order polynomials. It is then shown that observations in the range f = 50 — 100 MHz can feasibly 
constrain the Lya and X-ray emissivity of the first stars forming at 2: ~ 15 — 25, provided that 
systematic temperature residuals can be controlled to less than 1 mK. Finally, we demonstrate the 
difficulty of detecting the 21 cm signal from the dark ages before star formation. 



I. INTRODUCTION 

The transition of the Universe from the dark ages fol- 
lowing hydrogen recombination through to the epoch of 
reionization remains one of the least constrained frontiers 
of modern cosmology. Observing the sources responsi- 
ble for heating and ionizing the intergalactic medium 
(IGM) at redshifts z > 6 pushes current observational 
techniques to the limit. Plans are underway to construct 
low- frequency radio telescopes, such as LOFAR^, MWA^, 
PAPERS, and SKA", to observe the red-shifted 21 cm 
line of neutral hydrogen. These experiments aim to map 
the state of the intergalactic medium via tomographic 
observations of 3D fluctuations in the 21 cm brightness 
temperature. A simpler and significantly lower cost al- 
ternative to this would be measurements of the global 
21 cm signal integrated over the sky [2,".4,], which can be 
achieved by single dipole experiments like EDGES @ or 
CoRE [6] . Although such experiments are today in their 
infancy, their potential is large. In this paper, we explore 
the potential for these global sky experiments to measure 
the 21 cm signal and constrain the high redshift Universe. 

We may draw a historical analogy with the Cosmic 
Background Explorer (COBE), whose FIRAS instrument 
measured the blackbody spectrum of the cosmic mi- 
crowave background (CMB) [7] while the DMR instru- 
ment measured the level of temperature fluctuations [8| . 
The precise measurement of a Tcmb = 2.726 K black- 
body spectrum placed tight constraints on early en- 
ergy injection, since no Compton-y or /i-distortion were 
seen, and provided important evidence conflrming the big 
bang paradigm. The detection of angular fluctuations 
paved the way for more sensitive experiments such as 
BOOMERANG [9] and WMAP lO], which provided pre- 
cision measurements of the CMB acoustic peaks. While, 



at the moment, attention is focussed on experiments de- 
signed to measure 21 cm fluctuations, it is important not 
to neglect the possibility of measuring the global signal. 

The evolution of the 21 cm signal is driven primar- 
ily by the amount of neutral hydrogen and the coupling 
between the 21 cm spin temperature and the gas tem- 
perature. It is able to act as a sensitive thermometer 
when the IGM gas temperature is less than the CMB 
temperature placing constraints on energy injection that 
leads to heating. For example, the first black holes to 
form generate X-rays, which heat the gas. More exotic 
processes such as annihilating dark matter might have 
also been important. Additionally, energy injection in 
the form of Lya production modifies the strength of the 
coupling. This provides a way of tracking star forma- 
tion, which will be the dominant source of Lya photons. 
As we show, the spectral structure of the 21 cm signal 
is much richer than that of a blackbody so that many 
things can be learnt about the early Universe. Given the 
uncertainties, we develop a model approach based upon 
those physical features most likely to be present. 

The single most important factor determining the sen- 
sitivity of dipoles to astrophysics will be their ability to 
remove galactic foregrounds [e.g.[Il|,[i4|- Exploitation of 
spectral smoothness to remove foregrounds by fitting low 
order polynomials is key to avoiding throwing the signal 
away with the foreground. To quantify this, we develop 
a simple Fisher matrix formalism and validate it against 
more detailed numerical parameter fitting. This provides 
us with a way of quantitatively addressing the ability of 
global 21 cm experiments to constrain reionization and 
the astrophysics of the first galaxies [13]. Similar work 
on the subject 4] ignored the infiuence of foregrounds 
limiting its utility considerably. 

Much of the power of this technique stems from the 
limitations of other observational probes. While next 
generation telescopes such as JWST^, GMT^, EELT^ or 



* Hubble Fellow; Electronic address: I jpritchardQcfa. harvard. edu| 
^ http://www.lofar.org/ 

^ http://www.MWAtelescope.org/ 
^ Parsons et al. [l|| 

* http://www.skatelescope.org/ 



^ http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ 

® http://www.gmto.org/ 

"^ http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/eelt/ 



TMT^ may provide a glimpse of the Universe at 2 > 12 
they peer through a narrow field of view and are unlikely 
to touch upon redshifts z > 20. As we will show, 21 
cm global experiments could potentially provide crude 
constraints on even higher redshifts at a much lower cost. 

The structure of this paper is as follows. In iJTTl we 
begin by describing the basic physics that drives the evo- 
lution of the 21 cm global signature and drawing atten- 
tion to the key observable features. We follow this in ^IIII 
with a discussion of the foregrounds, which leads into our 
presenting a Fisher matrix formalism for predicting ob- 
servational constraints in ijIVI In iJV] and WII we apply 
this formalism to the signal from reionization and the 
first stars, respectively. After a brief discussion in §VIII 
of the prospects for detecting the signal from the dark 
ages before star formation, we conclude in Willi 

Throughout this paper where cosmological parameters 
are required we use the standard set of values ^ra = 0.3, 
VLk = 0.7, rife = 0.046, U = lOO/ikms-^Mpc-i (with 
h = 0.7), ns — 0.95, and as — 0.8, consistent with the 
latest measurements 1141. 



II. PHYSICS OF THE 21 CM GLOBAL SIGNAL 

The physics of the cosmological 21 cm signal has been 
described in detail by a number of authors 'iS, U^ and 
we focus here on those features relevant for the global 
signal. It is important before we start to emphasise our 
uncertainty in the sources of radiation in the early Uni- 
verse, so that we must of necessity extrapolate far beyond 
what we know to make predictions for what we may find. 
Nonetheless the basic atomic physics is well understood 
and a plausible understanding of the likely history is pos- 
sible. 

The 21 cm line frequency 1^21 cm = 1420 MHz redshifts 
for z = 6 - 27 into the range 200-50 MHz. The signal 
strength may be expressed as a differential brightness 
temperature relative to the CMB 



Tb = 27a;Hi 



Ts 



1 + z 
10 



X (l + Sb) 



1/2 



drVr 



{l + z)H{z) 



mK, (1) 



where cchi is the hydrogen neutral fraction, 5b is the over- 
density in baryons, Ts is the 21 cm spin temperature, T^ 
is the CMB temperature, H{z) is the Hubble parameter, 
and the last term describes the effect of peculiar velocities 
with drVr the derivative of the velocities along the line 
of sight. Throughout this paper, we will neglect fluctua- 
tions in the signal so that neither of the terms 5b nor the 
peculiar velocities will be relevant. Fluctuations in xh 



and 5b will be relevant for the details of the signal, but 
are not required to get the broad features of the signal, 
on which we focus here. 



= 80 40 



1^ 

G 




100 



-150 



-200 



-250 



_no stars 
-Saturated 
no heating- 
.no ionizing- 
-full calc 



_L 



_L 



_L 



50 



100 150 

i^[MHz] 



200 



250 



* http://www.tmt.org/ 



FIG. 1: Evolution of the 21 cm global signal for different 
scenarios. Solid blue curve: no stars; solid red curve: Ts ^ 
T^; black dotted curve: no heating; black dashed curve: no 
ionization; black solid curve: full calculation. 



The evolution of Tb is thus driven by the evolution of 
Xh and Ts and is illustrated for redshifts z < 100 in 
Figured] Early on, collisions drive T5 to the gas temper- 
ature Tx, which after thermal decoupling (at z « 1000) 
has been cooling faster than the CMB leading to a 21 cm 
absorption feature {[Ts — Tj] < 0). Collisions start to 
become ineffective at redshifts z ~ 80 and scattering of 
CMB photons begins to drive Ts -^ T-y causing the sig- 
nal to disappear. In the absence of star formation, this 
would be the whole story [l7|. 

Star formation leads to the production of Lya photons, 
which resonantly scatter off hydrogen coupling Ts to Tk 
via the Wouthysen-Field effect [1^, Q^. This produces 
a sharp absorption feature beginning at z ~ 30. If star 
formation also generates X-rays they will heat the gas, 
first causing a decrease in Tb as the gas temperature is 
heated towards T^ and then leading to an emission sig- 
nal, as the gas is heated to temperatures Tk > T^- For 
Ts ^ T~f all dependence on the spin temperature drops 
out of equation ([1]) and the signal becomes saturated. 
This represents a hard upper limit on the signal. Finally 
reionization will occur as UV photons produce bubbles 
of ionized hydrogen that percolate, removing the 21 cm 
signal. 

We may thus identify five main events in the history 
of the 21 cm signal: (i) collisional coupling becoming in- 
effective (ii) Lya coupling becoming effective (iii) heat- 
ing occurring (iv) reionization beginning (v) reionization 



ending. In the scenario described above the first four of 
these events generates a turning point (dT^/dz — 0) and 
the final event marks the end of the signal. We reiterate 
that the astrophysics of the sources driving these events 
is very uncertain, so that when or even if these events 
occur as described is currently unknown. Figure [2] shows 
a set of histories for different values of the X-ray and Lya 
emissivity, parametrized about our fiducial model by fx 
and fa representing the product of the emissivity and the 
star formation efficiency following Ref. [16|. Clearly the 
positions of these features may move around both in the 
amplitude of TJ, and the frequency at which they occur. 



is shown in Figure [3l where the form of the galaxy is 
clearly visible. In this paper, we will be focusing upon 
observations by single dipole experiments. These have 
beam shapes with a typical field-of-view of tens of de- 
grees. The lower panel of Figure [3] shows the beam of 
dipole (approximated here as a single cos^ 9 lobe) sit- 
ting at the MWA site in Australia (approximate latitude 
26°59'S), observing at zenith, and integrated over a full 
day. Although the dipole does not see the whole sky at 
once it does average over large patches. We will therefore 
neglect spatial variations (although we will return to this 
point in our conclusions). 



80 40 




Sky at 100 MHz 



100 150 

^[MHz] 



250 



FIG. 2: Dependence of 21 cm signal on the X-ray (top panel) 
and LyQ (bottom panel) emissivity. In each case, we consider 
examples with the emissivity reduced or increased by a factor 
of up to 100. Note that in our model fx and fa are really the 
product of the emissivity and the star formation efficiency. 




dipole response at 100 MHz 




FIG. 3: Top panel: Radio map of the sky at 100 MHz gen- 
erated from Ref. [2J]. Bottom panel: Ideal dipole response 
averaged over 24 hours. 



We view this to be the most likely sequence of events 
for plausible astrophysical models. We are reassured in 
this sequencing since, in the absence of Lya photons es- 
caping from galaxies [20] , X-rays will also produce Lya 
photons [2l|, [22| and so couple Ts to Tk and, in the ab- 
sence of X-rays, scattering of Lya photons heats the gas 
[23| . In each case the relative sequence of events is likely 
to be maintained. We will return to how different models 
may be distinguished later and now turn to the presence 
of foregrounds between us and the signal. 



III. FOREGROUNDS 

At the frequencies of interest (10-250 MHz), the sky 
is dominated by synchrotron emission from the galaxy. 
A useful model of the sky has been put together by Ref. 
[24| using all existing observations. The sky at 100 MHz 



Averaging the foregrounds over the dipole's angular re- 
sponse gives the spectrum shown in the top panel of Fig- 
ure S) First note that the amplitude of the foregrounds is 
large ^ 100 K compared to the 10 mK signal. Nonethe- 
less, given the smooth frequency dependence of the fore- 
grounds we are motivated to try fitting the foreground 
out using a low order polynomial in the hope that this 
leaves the signal behind. This has been shown by many 
authors [e.g. [2^, [2g to be a reasonable procedure in the 
case of 21 cm tomography. There the inhomogeneities 
fluctuate rapidly with frequency, so that only the largest 
Fourier modes of the signal are removed. In the case of 
the global 21 cm signal our signal is relatively smooth in 
frequency, especially if the bandwidth of the instrument 
is small. Throwing the signal out with the foregrounds 
is therefore a definite concern. 

Throughout this paper, we will fit the foregrounds us- 



800 


\ 




- 


600 


r \ 




" 


400 


- 




- 


200 


- 




^ 


68 

40 


- 




- 


L / 


\ N = 2 
\ N = 3 


- 


20 


r / 




/-- 





Wv- 






-20 






- 



100 



150 
i/[MHz] 



200 



FIG. 4: Foreground (top panel) and residuals (bottom panel) 
left over after fitting a N-th order polynomial in log v to the 
foreground. 



o 

QO 5.75 
o 

5.7 

_ -2.54 

"^ -2.53 




r . X X X . X X X -j 


-0.072 

«" -0.074 

-0.076 

„ 0.015 

"^ 0.01 


L X X , X - ■< - J 


r " X " " " -j 


0.02 

a 

-0.02 


X ^ 


0.04 

"" -0.04 
-0.08 







10 



poly 



FIG. 5: Dependence of the best fit values for the first six 
parameters from the foreground fitting process on the order 
of the polynomial, A^poiy. 



ing a polynomial of the form 



A^o 



logTfit = ^ a,\og(ylvQf 



(2) 



i=0 



Here vq is a pivot scale and vife vifill generally recast 
ao -^ log To to emphasise that the zeroth order coeffi- 
cient more naturally has units of temperature. The lower 
panel of Figure H] shows the residuals left over after fit- 
ting and subtracting polynomials of different order to the 
foregrounds. It is apparent that a polynomial of at least 
-^poiy = 3 is necessary to remove the foreground. Unfor- 
tunately, our current knowledge of the low frequency sky 
is not sufficient for us to conclusively say that we will not 
need a higher order polynomial or to accurately quantify 
the minimum level of residuals that will be left on fitting 
the signal. The residuals visible in Figure H] for A^poiy = 3 
are dominated by numerical limitations of the sky model 
being used and have \/((Tsky — T^tY) ^ 1 mK averaged 
over the band. 

Figure [5] shows the evolution of the best fit values as 
we change the order of the fit. The first four values are 
non-zero and therefore important to the fit. The next 
two hover around zero (although as the order increases 
they move away from zero). This supports the inference 
that only the first four parameters are necessary and after 
that we are beginning to over fit. We therefore take as 
our fiducial model for the foreground the form 

logT^ky =logTo 

+ ax log(i//i/o) + a2[log(z//z/o)]^ + a3[log(^//^/o)]^ (3) 



with parameter values vq = 150 MHz, Tq = 320 K, a\ — 
-2.54, 02 = -0.074, 03 = 0.013, chosen from fitting to 
the band v — 100 — 200 MHz. These values are roughly 
consistent with those found by the observations reported 
in Ref. ^275, which found To = 237±10 K and ai = -2.5± 
0.1 over the same band. Where necessary we include 
additional terms as a-i = for i > 4. Fitting to a different 
bandwidth and pivot frequency will modify these values. 
For example, fitting to :^ = 50 — 150 MHz with vq — 
100 MHz yields, Tq = 875 K, oi = -2.47, 03 = -0.089, 
03 = 0.013. Aside from the overall normalisation, there 
is little qualitative change in the shape. 



IV. FISHER CALCULATION 

The main objective of this paper is to develop a for- 
malism for quantifying the ability of global 21 cm experi- 
ments to constrain astrophysical parameters. A straight- 
forward, but brute force approach, is to model the signal, 
add a foreground, and then use Monte-Carlo (MC) fitting 
techniques to see how well model parameters may be con- 
strained. When faced with the large space of model pa- 
rameters to be explored this is inadequate. We therefore 
explore the use of the Fisher matrix approach, applicable 
if the model likelihood is well approximated by a multi- 
variate Gaussian. We will later show that this is a good 
approximation by testing it directly against the results 
of direct MC fitting. 



The Fisher matrix takes the form [28 



F,^ = xTr [C-^C.G-^a, + C-\pi^,iF^ + a*,,M^)] 



(4) 



where C = {xx^) is the covariance matrix and ^ = (x). 
For the 21 cm gfobal signature, our observable is the an- 
tennae temperature Tsky(i^) — T[g{v) + Ti,{iy), where we 
assume the dipole sees the full sky so that spatial varia- 
tion can be ignored. We divide the signal into -/Vchannci 
frequency bins {vn} of bandwidth B running between 
[t'min , J^max] ■ The covariancc matrix is taken to be diago- 
nal, since errors in different frequency bins are expected 
to be uncorrelated, so that it is given by 



Cr 



SioCr, 



(5) 



with the thermal noise given by the radiometer equation 



Tlyjl^^) 



Bt 



int 



(6) 



assuming an integration time t[^t. In this paper, we will 
consider single dipole experiments, but the noise could be 
further reduced by a factor -/Vdipoic through the incoher- 
ent summing of the signal from multiple dipoles. Finally, 
we can allow for a limiting floor in the noise due to fore- 
ground fitting residuals or instrumental noise by setting 

^f -^ (^1 + o-f,rcs- 

Under these assumptions the Fisher matrix takes the 

form 



Wcl 



F- — 



n=\ 



(2^ 



dlogTskyKOdlogTskyK) ,„^ 



dpi 



dPj 



where the parameter set {p^} includes both foreground 
and signal model parameters. Here the first term is the 
information contained in the amplitude of the noise and is 
subdominant for reasonable experiments ([cf. i^]). Given 
this Fisher matrix, the best parameter constraints achiev- 
able on parameter pi are given by the Cramer-Rao in- 
equality Oi > y F~^^. This Fisher matrix offers a fast 
and, as we will show in the next section, reliable means 
of calculating the expected constraints for 21 cm global 
experiments. 

The assumption of a full sky observation is not strictly 
valid, since the dipole sees the sky with a beam tens of 
degrees across. Both foreground and signal will show 
spatial variation. Fluctuations in the 21 cm signal can 
be large in amplitude, but span a characteristic scale of 
order a few arcminutes corresponding to the size of the 
ionized bubbles. As such our beam will average over 
many of these, so that we do not expect significant spa- 
tial fluctuations to survive. The foregrounds are another 
matter and spatial variation may be a mixed blessing. 
In practice, each foreground parameters should be fitted 
independently in each pixel. Since the signal is common 
to all pixels, exploiting the spatial variation of the fore- 
grounds could be used to remove them more efficiently. 



So far, we have assumed that the instrument's fre- 
quency response can be calibrated out perfectly. At 
present one of the limiting factors of the EDGES ex- 
periment is that the dipole's frequency response is un- 
calibrated. This has the effect of convolving both fore- 
grounds and signal with some unknown function of fre- 
quency. Provided that this function is smooth the main 
complication so introduced is that the convolved fore- 
grounds are no longer easily described by a low order 
polynomial. In Ref. [5|, a 12th order polynomial in v 
was used for the foreground fitting, primarily in order 
to fit out the instrumental response. Since this is very 
much a prototype experiment, we will optimistically as- 
sume that this instrumental problem can be dealt with 
in more advanced designs. 



V. REIONIZATION 

Next, we will consider the possibility of constraining 
the evolution of the hydrogen neutral fraction from the 
global 21 cm signal. Predicting the reionization his tory 
has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years [Tj] . 
Constraints arise from the Lya forest, the optical depth 
to the CMB, and numerous other locations. Although 
these may be combined to constrain the reionization his- 
tory [e.g. [29|, the quality of current constraints is poor. 
In general though, reionization is expected to be a rela- 
tively extended process. 

Given the uncertainty associated with making de- 
tailed predictions for the evolution of xh, we adopt as 
a toy model for reionization a tanh step (as used by the 
WMAP7 analysis ^]) with parameters describing the 
two main features of reionization: its mid point Zj. and 
duration Az. We will further assume that the 21 cm spin 
temperature is saturated at the relevant redshifts (a rea- 
sonable although not guaranteed simplifying assumption 
[23,[3l|). Under these assumptions, the 21 cm brightness 
temperature is given by 



1 + z 



^ ' 2 V 10 



1/2 



tanh 



Az 



(8) 



In principle, the amplitude of the signal T21 is calculable 
from first principles (T21 = 27 mK for our fiducial cos- 
mology), but we leave it as a free parameter. This helps 
us gauge how well the experiment is really detecting the 
21 cm signal. Figure [S] shows a few different histories for 
this model. 

Before exploring the detection space for 21 cm exper- 
iments, we validate our Fisher matrix against a more 
numerically intensive Monte-Carlo. We consider an ex- 
periment covering the frequency range 100 — 250 MHz in 
50 bins and integrating for 500 hours (these parameters 
mimic EDGES with an order of magnitude longer inte- 
gration time). Taking fiducial values of z^ = 8, Az = 1, 
and A^poiy = 3, we fit the model and foreground for 10^ re- 
alisations of the thermal noise. This yields an estimate of 



100 



z 


= 


10 


5 


1 


' ' 






-"■■■■.. 


\ \ 


^ 0.5 


- 


\ * 
\ ^ 
\ ' 


\ 
\ 


40 

30 

^ 20 


- 


'■■■■■■■.. 


\ 


^;~^ 


— 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 


1 r^-*t 1 — - 

_z =6 Az = 0.2 - 
_z'=8 Az=l '- 
..zl=10 Az = 2 J 


F-" 


- 


\ 


\ 


10 


'- 


■■■.... \ 


\ 
\ 








\ 
\ 



150 200 

i/[MHz] 



250 



FIG. 6: Evolution of the neutral fraction xh and brightness 
temperature Tj, for a tanh model of reionization (see Eq[8]). 



the parameter uncertainty that can be expected from ob- 
servations and can be used to test our Fisher matrix cal- 
culation. The resulting parameter contours are shown in 
Figure [7] along with the Fisher matrix constraints. That 
they are in good agreement validates our underlying for- 
malism. 



the way in which foreground fitting removes power from 
more extended histories making it difficult to distinguish 
a larger amplitude extended scenario from a lower am- 
plitude sharper scenario. 

Despite the good agreement, this formalism breaks 
down when the Fisher matrix errors become large enough 
that reionization parameters are not well constrained. 
Although this is not a major hurdle here, caution should 
be used when errors are much larger than the parameters 
being constrained. 



200MHz 



150MHz 



100MHz 




10 



12 



14 



FIG. 8: 95% detection region for global experiments assuming 
A'^poiy = 3 (solid curve), 6 (dashed curve), 9 (dotted curve), 
and 12 (dot-dashed curve). Also plotted are the 68 and 95% 
contours for WMAP5 with a prior that Xi{z = 6.5) > 0.95 
(green and red coloured regions). 



8.05 








8.05 






m" 8.00 


<i 


Ql: 




m" 8.00 


^^^^ 




7.95 








7.95 








0.02 


0.03 
T, [K] 


0. 


D4 
5x10"== 

A 


8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1 
A z 


2 


0.04 








V 




^ 0.03 




>^ 




o 

Y 


^ 




0.02 


** 


(^ 




1 

o 
-5x10"^ 


X 







8 0.9 


1.0 1. 
A z 


1 


2 -0. 


005 0.000 0.0 
To-<To> [K] 


05 



FIG. 7: Comparison of 68 and 95% confidence regions between 
our MC likelihood (green and red coloured regions) and Fisher 
matrix (solid ellipses) calculations for a tanh model of reion- 
ization with Zr — 8 and Az = 1 and fitting four foreground 
parameters. 



The error ellipses show that there is a strong degen- 
eracy between T21 and Az. This is a consequence of 



The resulting potential detection region for the above 
experiment is shown in Figure |H1 where we consider sev- 
eral different orders of polynomial fit. The detection re- 
gion shows a number of wiggles associated with points in 
the frequency range where the shape of the 21 cm signal 
becomes more or less degenerate with the polynomial fit- 
ting. We also show the 1- and 2 — a constraint regions 
from WMAP's optical depth measurement. These con- 
strain the redshift of reionization, but say little about 
how long it takes. Adding in a prior based upon Lya 
forest observations that the Universe is fully ionized by 
z — 6.5 (specified here as Xi{z = 6.5) > 0.95) removes 
the region of parameter space with large Az and low z^. 

Global experiments can take a good sized bite out of 
the remaining parameter space. They are sensitive to 
the full range of redshifts, but primarily to the sharpest 
reionization histories. Only if A'poiy < 6 can histories 
with Az > 1 be constrained and histories with Az > 2.5 
appear too extended for high significance detections. 

This is unfortunate, since Pritchard et al. [23 found 
that most reionization histories compatible with the ex- 
isting data have Az > 2, suggesting it will be difficult for 
global experiments to probe the most likely models. An 
important caveat to these conclusions is that the tanh 



model that we have used here is a toy model of reion- 
ization. More realistic models may have more detectable 
features since they often end rapidly, but have a long tail 
to high redshifts. 



VI. FIRST SOURCES 

We now turn from rcionization to the signal produced 
by the first galaxies, which generate an early background 
of Lya and X-ray photons. This region is essentially 
unconstrained by existing observations and global 21 cm 
experiments represent one of the only upcoming ways of 
probing this epoch. 

Although models for the signal during this epoch exist 
[JQi |32| , it will be useful to focus on physical features of 
the signal that are both observable and model indepen- 
dent. With this in mind, we parametrize the signal in 
terms of the turning points of the 21 cm signal. Figure 
[5] shows the evolution of Tf, and its frequency derivative. 
As discussed in ijlll there are four turning points asso- 
ciated with: (0) a minimum during the dark ages where 
collisional coupling begins to become ineffective, (1) a 
maximum at the transition from the dark ages to the 
Lya pumping regime as Lya pumping begins to be ef- 
fective, (2) an absorption minimum as X-ray heating be- 
gins to raise the signal towards emission, (3) an emission 
maximum as the signal becomes saturated and starts to 
decrease with the cosmic expansion. Finally reionization 
completes providing a fifth point. Asymptotically the 
signal goes to zero at very low and high frequencies. 



50 



I -50 
^^100 



-150 



-200 
10 



z= 80 40 20 



10 






T3 



X) 



-10 



r II I I II I I ' ~ 

- ' I' ' ' ll ' 1' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' - 



50 



100 150 200 250 

i/[MHz] 



FIG. 9: Evolution of the 21 cm global signal and its deriva- 
tive. Vertical dashed lines indicate the locations of the turning 
points. In the top panel, we also show a cubic spline fit to the 
turning points (blue dotted curve) as described in the text. 



In order to have a simple model for the evolution of the 
signal, we adopt parameters {vo:Tbo), {i^i,Tbi), (1^2, '?62), 
(1/3, Tba), and 1/4 for the frequency and amplitude of the 
turning points and the frequency at the end of reioniza- 
tion. For clarity of notation we will label these points as 
Xj = {i^i,Ti,i) (with X4 = (i^4,0mK)). We then model the 
signal with a simple cubic spline between these points 
with the additional condition that the derivative should 
be zero at the turning points (enforced by doubling the 
data points at the turning points and offsetting them by 
Ai/ = ±lMHz). 

For our fiducial model, we adopt the fiducial param- 
eter set of Ref. [1^, assuming a star forming efficiency 
/* = 0.1, a Lya emissivity expected for Population II 
stars /q = 1, and X-ray emissivity appropriate for ex- 
trapolating the locally observed X-ray-FIR correlation, 
fx ~ 1. This gives turning points xo=(16.1 MHz, -42 
mK), xi = (46.2 MHz, -5 niK), X2=(65.3 MHz, -107 mK), 
X3=(99.4 MHz, 27 mK), and X4=(180 MHz, mK). The 
resulting spline fit is shown in the top panel of Figure 
[9l The model does a good job of capturing the general 
features of the 21 cm signal, although there are clear dif- 
ferences in the detailed shape. Since global experiments 
are unlikely to constrain more than the sharpest features, 
this approach should be adequate for our purposes. 

There is considerable uncertainty in the parameters of 
this model, and so to gauge the likely model dependence 
of the turning points, we make use of the model of Ref. 
[16| |. Varying the Lya , X-ray, and UV emissivity by 
two orders of magnitude on either side of their fiducial 
values we find the position and amplitude of the turning 
points to give the parameter space shown in Figure 1101 
This provides a useful guide to targeting observations in 
frequency space. We have found that a global experiment 
has very little sensitivity to features lying outside of the 
observed frequency band. 

Since we fix the cosmology, Xq appears as a single 
point. The locations of xi and X3 are controlled by the 
Lya and X-ray emissivity respectively. Only X2 shows 
significant dependence on both Lya and X-ray emissiv- 
ity leading to a large uncertainty in its position. This 
is good news observationally, since even a poor measure- 
ment of the position of X2 is likely to rule out a wide 
region of parameter space. Since X2 is the feature with 
both the largest amplitude and sharpest shape, we expect 
that this is the best target for observation and makes ex- 
periments covering i/ = 50 — 100 MHz of great interest. 

Since our model is approximate, it is important to 
check whether it leads to significantly biased constraints 
on the features of interest. One could imagine that fit- 
ting the splined shape might lead to biased estimates of 
the position of the turning points, for example. We have 
checked this through Monte-Carlo simulation by fitting 
the turning-point model to the full calculation signal for 
10^ realisations of the thermal noise. As seen in Fig- 
ure [11] for an experiment covering 1/ =45-145 MHz in 
50 bins and integrating for 500 hours, the MC calcula- 
tion shows no sign of significant biasing and is in good 



8 



-0.1 



-0.2 - 



0.0 



-0.1 



-0.2 - 



X 

Xo - 


X, : 


^ 


^5- 



50 100 150 
u [MHzl 



50 100 
u [MHzl 



150 



FIG. 10: Parameter space for the frequency and brightness 
temperature of the four turning points of the 21 cm signal cal- 
culated by varying parameters over the range fx = [0.01, 100] 
and fa — [0.01, 100] for fixed cosmology and star formation 
rate /, = 0.1. Green region indicates fa > 1, red region indi- 
cates /x > 1, blue regions indicates both fa>l and fx > I, 
while the black region has /q < 1 and /x < 1. 



agreement with the Fisher matrix calculation using the 
turning-point model. 



0.1 

0.0 



-0.1 




40 



0.10 " 
0.05 - 

0.00 - 
-0.05 _ 



45 50 
i^, [MHz] 



55 



100 



-0.05 " 

-0.10 - 

-0.15 _ 
6C 

0.10 " 
0.05 - 

0.00 - 

-0.05 

-0.15 



65 



70 



[MHz] 




-0.10 



-0.05 



[MHz] 



FIG. 11: Comparison of the 68 and 95% confidence regions 
for our MC likelihood (green and red coloured regions) and 
Fisher matrix (solid contours). The MC calculation fits the 
turning point model to the full signal while the Fisher matrix 
calculation is for the turning point model only. 



The final panel of Figure [TT] shows a degeneracy be- 
tween T{,2 and Tb^. This might be expected for an ex- 
periment whose sensitivity is primarily to the derivative 
of the signal, which is left unchanged by shifting both of 
these points up or down. 

As we examine lower frequencies where the foregrounds 



are brighter, we must increasingly worry about fore- 
ground removal leaving behind systematic residuals that 
limit the sensitivity of the experiment. In Figure [T^ we 
plot the sensitivity of the same experiment to X3 as a 
function of this residual floor Trcs for different values of 
-^poiy Polynomials with A^poiy < 9 are required to have 
any chance of detecting the signal. Sensitivity to the 
signal begins to degrade once T^es becomes greater than 
0.1 mK corresponding roughly to the thermal noise for 
this experiment. A detection of X3 is still possible until 



T. 



sys 



ImK. 



10 

TT 

a 1 



0.1 

I 10= 
« 10 



^ 10 

=," 1 



E 10= 



E- 10 



■ 


npo,y=9, 6, 3 ^^^^^0^ 




.... 


_— --"■^"''''^ 


_ 




r 




^ 


p. 


^__,---'''''''^ 


— 


__,.—--''''''^^^ 






r 






.... 


^^^^^-^^^^j^-"""^ 


r 




r- 


1 ^^l-'" I,...--^ 


>^"'l 


___,.--' -^^ 


f 


.... 


___--— "■"""^ 


! 


1 1 1 1 



0.01 0.1 1 



10 



10= 



FIG. 12: Dependence of (vsjTts) and {i'2,Tb2) errors with 
level of systematic residuals for A'^poiy = 3 (black solid curve), 
6 (red dotted curve), and 9 (blue dashed curve). The dashed 
vertical lines indicates the fiducial values Tt^ — 27 mK and 
|T63| = 107 mK. 



We finish this section by comparing the Fisher matrix 
constraints from Figure [TT] on top of the region spanned 
by the turning points in Figure 1101 This is shown in Fig- 
ure [13] and gives a sense of the large space of astrophysical 
models that may be ruled out with a single global exper- 
iment. While the experiment has trouble constraining 
Xi and X3 with any significance, it places relatively good 
constraints on X2. 

Throughout this section we have chosen to model the 
21 cm global signal by a simple cubic spline based upon 
the turning points of the signal. While this model is 
simple, one can imagine alternative approaches. Since 
the experiments are primarily sensitive to the derivative 
of the 21 cm signal, we might imagine taking the positions 
of the extrema of the derivative dTb/dv as our parameters 
and seek to constrain those. We leave the exploration of 
alternatives such as this to future work. 




0.0 r 



-0.2 




50 75 100 

i/j [MHz] 



0.08 


A 


; , 




^ 0.04 


// 


^ 0.00 


- /^^ "- 



100 



150 



-0.2 -0.1 



0.0 



[MHz] 



FIG. 13: Experimental constraints overlaid on the allowed 
region for the turning points. Shaded regions (dashed curves) 
illustrate contours of /x and /„ by an order of magnitude 
(red to yellow). 



VII. DARK AGES 

The physics of the period before star formation at 
z '^ 30 is determined by well known atomic processes 
and so has much in common with the CMB. However, 
many models have been put forward that would mod- 
ify this simple picture with exotic energy deposition via 
annihilating or decaying dark matter 33] or evaporating 
black holes (SJ], for example. During the dark ages, the 
21 cm signal acts as a sensitive thermometer, potentially 
capable of constraining these exotic processes. Here we 
will focus on the standard history and leave consideration 
of the possibility of detecting other scenarios to future 
work. 

The signal during the dark ages reaches a maximum 
at Xq = (16 MHz, — 42mK), somewhat larger in am- 
plitude than the reionization emission signal. However, 
at these low frequencies the foregrounds are extremely 
large, Tfg « 10^ K at zz = 30 MHz, making detection 
very difficult. Its is worth noting however that global 
experiments have an advantage over tomographic mea- 
surements here, since at these early times structures have 
had little chance to grow, making the fluctuations much 
smaller than during reionization. Further, it is easier to 
imagine launching a single dipole experiment beyond the 
Earth's ionosphere rather than the many km^ of collect- 
ing area needed for interferometers to probe this epoch 

Up. 

Given the large foregrounds, long integration times or 
many dipoles are required to reach the desired sensitiv- 
ity level. Taking Tfg := lO"^ K at i/ = 30 MHz a single 
dipole would need to integrate for iint = 1000 hours to 
reach 4 mK sensitivity. Removing the foregrounds over 
this dynamic range without leaving considerable residu- 
als will clearly require very precise instrumental calibra- 



tion. Given the challenges, we look at the most optimistic 
case as a limit of what could be accomplished. 

Taking an experiment covering v = 5 — 60 MHz in 
50 channels and integrating for 8000 hours, we assume 
a minimal iVpoiy — 3 polynomial fit leaving no residu- 
als. The resulting constraint on the position and am- 
plitude of the dark ages feature are shown in Figure [TH 
Such an experiment is capable of detecting the signal, 
but only barely. For comparison, we have plotted the 
uncertainty arising from cosmological measurements of 
0,mh? and Jlfc/i^, the two main parameters determining 
the 21 cm signal. This uncertainty is much less than the 
experimental uncertainty. 



0.00 - 



-0.05 



-0.10 




FIG. 14: 68 and 95% error ellipses on the amplitude and fre- 
quency of the dark ages minima for a single dipole experiment 
(solid curves, see text for details). For comparison, we show 
the spread in these quantities from the WMAP5 1- and 2- 
a uncertainties in Q,mh? and Q,i,h? (green and red coloured 
region) . 



Although we have shown that detecting the dark ages 
feature from the standard history would be extremely 
challenging, modified histories arising from exotic energy 
injection may lead to larger features more easily detected. 
Since there is no other probe of physics at 30 < z < 
150 global 21 cm experiments offer a unique if extremely 
challenging probe of this period. 



VIII. CONCLUSIONS 

Observations of the redshifted 21 cm line potentially 
provide a new window into the high redshift Universe. 
Detecting this signal in the presence of large foregrounds 
is challenging and it is important to explore all avenues 
for exploiting the signal. In this paper, we have focussed 
upon the possibility of using single dipole experiments 
to observe the all-sky 21 cm signal, in contrast to the 
21 cm fluctuations targeted by MWA, LOFAR, PAPER, 
and SKA. Experiments targeting this global signal are 



10 



in their infancy. We emphasise that instruments buih 
from a few dipoles targeting the global 21 cm signal can 
be several orders of magnitude cheaper to build than in- 
terferometers targeting the fluctuations. Their scientific 
return will be similarly less, but at this stage where we 
know so little about the first sources, even that little is 
extremely valuable. 

As we have outlined in this paper, the 21 cm signal 
generated by astrophysical processes has a well defined 
form, although the input parameters are only poorly un- 
derstood. We have demonstrated that, at the level of our 
current knowledge, describing the Galactic foregrounds 
requires at least a 3rd order polynomial. At this level, we 
are able to remove the foregrounds to the sub-mK level, 
although in practice this procedure may be more com- 
plicated. In order to characterise the sensitivity of these 
experiments to the signal, we developed a Fisher matrix 
formalism and validated it against more numerical fitting 
of the model parameters. This Fisher matrix approach 
allows rapid calculations of the experimental sensitivity 
and appears to reproduce more detailed calculations very 
well. 

Having developed this formalism we applied it to the 
signal from reionization and the epoch of the first stars. 
Using a toy model of reionization, we demonstrated that 
EDGES-like experiments should be capable of constrain- 
ing rapid reionization histories with Az < 2. More 
promisingly, these experiments can rule out a wide va- 
riety of astrophysical models for the signal from the first 
stars where the evolution of the spin temperature is im- 
portant. We used a straightforward fitting form for the 
signal based upon the positions of the turning points and 
showed that these features could be constrained, with 



the deepest absorption trough providing the best obser- 
vational target. 

Finally, we briefly explored the possibility of detect- 
ing the absorption feature present before star formation 
began. The increased foreground brightness at low fre- 
quencies make it very difficult to constrain this feature 
and will require long integration times and more sophis- 
ticated methods of foreground removal. 

This paper represents a first serious look at the 
prospects for using global measurements of the 21 cm 
signal to constrain astrophysics. As a result, there are a 
number of places where future work might improve upon 
our calculations. These include investigating the effects 
of finite sky coverage, incorporating an arbitrary instru- 
mental frequency response, and allowing for the removal 
of frequency channels corrupted by terrestrial radio in- 
terference. 



Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank Judd Bowman and Angelica de 
Oliveira-Costafor useful conversations. Figure[3]was gen- 
erated using HEALpix 37] and the global sky model soft- 
ware of Ref. [24.]. JRP is supported by NASA through 
Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01211.01-A awarded 
by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is op- 
erated by the Association of Universities for Research in 
Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. 
AL acknowledges funding from NSF grant AST-0907890 
and NASA grants NNA09DB30A and NNX08AL43G. 



[1] A. R. Parsons, D. C. Backer, G. S. Foster, et al., Astron. 

J. 139, 1468 (2010), arXiv:0904.2334. [12 

[2] P. Madau, A. Meiksin, and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. 

475, 429 (1997). [13 

[3] P. A. Shaver, R. A. Windhorst, P. Madau, and A. G. 

de Bruyn, Astron. & Astrophys. 345, 380 (1999), [14 

arXiv:astro-ph/9901320. 
[4] S. K. Sethi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 363, 818 (2005), [15 

arXiv: astro-ph/0508 1 72 . 
[5] J. D. Bowman, A. E. E. Rogers, and J. N. Hewitt, As- [16 

trophys. J. 676, 1 (2008), arXiv:0710.2541. 
[6] A. P. Chippendale, E. Subrahmanyan, and R. Ekers [17 

(2005), presented at New Techniques and Results in Low 

Frequency Radio Astronomy, Hobart. [18 

[7] J. C. Mather et al., Astrophys. J. 420, 439 (1994). [19 

[8] G. F. Smoot et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 396, LI (1992). [20 

[9] A. E. Lange et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 042001 (2001), 

arXiv:astro-ph/0005004. [21 

[10] D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, 

M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, [22 

N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 

148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209. [23 

[11] S. P. Oh and K. J. Mack, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 346, 



871 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302099. 

T. Di Matteo, B. Ciardi, and F. Miniati, Mon. Not. R. 

Astron. Soc. 355, 1053 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402322. 

A. Loeb, How did the first stars and galaxies form? 

(Princeton University Press, 2010). 

E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 180, 330 

(2009), arXiv:0803.0547. 

S. R. Furlanetto, S. P. Oh, and F. H. Briggs, Phys. Rept. 

433, 181 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608032. 

J. R. Pritchard and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D 78, 103511 

(2008), arXiv:0802.2102. 

A. Loeb and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 211301 
(2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312134. 

S. A. Wouthuysen, Astron. J. 57, 31 (1952). 
G. B. Field, Proc. I. R. E. 46, 240 (1958). 
J. Higgins and A. Meiksin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 
393, 949 (2009), arXiv:0811.1184. 

X. Chen and J. Miralda-Escude, Astrophys. J. 684, 18 
(2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0605439. 

L. Chuzhoy, M. A. Alvarez, and P. R. Shapiro, Astro- 
phys. J. Lett. 648, LI (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605511. 

B. Ciardi and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. 596, 1 (2003), 
arXiv:astro-ph/0303249. 



11 



[24] A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, B. M. Gaensler, 

J. Jonas, T. L. Landecker, and P. Reich, Mon. Not. R. 

Astron. Soc. 388, 247 (2008), arXiv:0802.1525. 
[25] M. McQuinn, O. Zahn, M. Zaldarriaga, L. Hernquist, 

and S. R. Furlanetto, Astrophys. J. 653, 815 (2006), 

arXiv:astro-ph/0512263. 
[26] X. Wang and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 643, 585 (2006), 

arXiv:astro-ph/0511141. 
[27] A. E. E. Rogers and J. D. Bowman, Astron. J. 136, 641 

(2008), arXiv:0806.2868. 
[28] D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 

518, 2 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807130. 
[29] J. R. Pritchard, A. Loeb, and J. S. B. Wyithe, ArXiv 

e-prints (2009), arXiv:0908.3891. 
[30] D. Larson, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, E. Komatsu, M. R. 

Nolta, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, 

N. Jarosik, et al., ArXiv e-prints (2010), arXiv:1001.4635. 



[31] J. R. Pritchard and S. R. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. R. As- 
tron. Soc. 376, 1680 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607234. 

[32] S. R. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 371, 867 
(2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604040. 

[33] S. R. Furlanetto, S. P. Oh, and E. Pierpaoh, Phys. Rev. 
D 74, 103502 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608385. 

[34] K. J. Mack and D. H. Wesley, ArXiv e-prints 805 (2008), 
arXiv:0805.1531. 

[35] C. Gordon and J. R. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063535 
(2009), arXiv:0907.5400. 

[36] S. Jester and H. Falcke, New Astronomy Review 53, 1 
(2009), arXiv:0902.0493. 

[37] K. M. Gorski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, 
F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann, Astro- 
phys. J. 622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513.